Politics in 2014

[Retired AF Guy]

When is he being sentenced?

Mid-July I think. And I heard something on CBC radio the other day that he may lose his federal pension from his time as a Liberal MP.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a look at a key wedge issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/from-alberta-to-toronto-oil-is-liberals-litmus-test-in-by-elections/article19388260/#dashboard/follows/

From Alberta to Toronto, oil is Liberals’ litmus test in by-elections

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Globe Staff
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jun. 30 2014

Justin Trudeau has had to dance around the issue of oil pipelines in Ontario and Alberta, stepping between those who love them and those who hate them. Now we’ll see if this is really the wedge issue his opponents can use to trip him up.

In two of the four ridings where by-elections will be held Monday, pipelines are an important issue – and those two constituencies, in left-leaning downtown Toronto and the oil-sands hub in Alberta, couldn’t be further apart.

Mr. Trudeau’s trying to make headway in both. But he faces different opponents in each riding, coming at him from each side – Conservatives who favour pipelines, and New Democrats who usually oppose them.

In Toronto’s Trinity-Spadina, the Liberals have star candidate Adam Vaughan trying to win the seat vacated by the NDP’s Olivia Chow, and the New Democrats are trying to use Mr. Trudeau’s support for the Keystone XL pipeline as the key issue to fend them off. But in Fort McMurray-Athabasca, the oil-sands hub where the Liberals are mounting a long-shot challenge, the Liberal Leader faces charges he would hurt the oil economy by blocking the Northern Gateway pipeline.

Mr. Trudeau shed the Liberals’ image as opponents of Alberta oil, but thread the needle on the issue. He’s embraced oil-sands development and favoured Keystone, while arguing that Stephen Harper’s failure to address greenhouse-gas emissions prevented political approval from Washington. But he’s also opposed the Northern Gateway pipeline to the West Coast saying it could bring oil spills in the Douglas Channel.

In Fort-McMurray–Athabasca, the Liberal candidate, Kyle Harrietha, is seeking an unlikely upset by arguing the Conservatives have taken booming Fort Mac for granted. But as Mr. Trudeau campaigned there last week, he was forced to fend off accusations he’d hurt the oil patch by rejecting pipelines like Northern Gateway.

He did so by expressing support for oil pipelines to the West Coast – just not Northern Gateway. He backed the idea of twinning the existing Trans-Mountain pipeline to Burnaby, B.C., saying, according to the Fort McMurray Today newspaper, that he hopes the project gets the social license to proceed. In other words, he’s in favour, as long as it’s not too unpopular. He has also supported the Line 9 project to carry Alberta oil to eastern Canada. He sounds bullish on pipelines.

But his candidate in Trinity-Spadina, Mr. Vaughan, doesn’t. He expresses worry about the environmental impact of the oil sands. At a press conference with a nodding Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Vaughan said all parties support one pipeline or another – but he was skeptical about Line 9, saying it shouldn’t go ahead until there’s a public consensus behind it.

Oddly enough, pipelines are probably a bigger issue in downtown Toronto than in Fort McMurray. The Trinity-Spadina by-election is a battle on the left, and the NDP is using Mr. Trudeau’s support for Keystone XL to argue he favours oil over the environment.

“This is a progressive downtown riding,” NDP candidate Joe Cressy said in an interview. “The environment has become a big issue in downtown Toronto. The Keystone pipeline has become a key distinguishing point in this election.”

The NDP haven’t been shy about that. And they’ve had help from activists who mounted a website called bigoiltrudeau.ca, aimed directly at Mr. Vaughan. One of their videos includes a jogger on Toronto’s waterfront slipping on an oil-soaked duck, followed by shots of Mr. Trudeau declaring support for Keystone.

Together, the dynamics of the two ridings have the Liberals squeezed. For many voters, the issue isn’t really pipelines, it’s oil-sands expansion, and it’s hard to appeal to both sides.

In truth, the other parties have danced, too. In June, the Conservatives approved Northern Gateway but distanced themselves from its fate. The NDP had said they favour Line 9 because the bitumen would be processed in Canada – making their stand on that pipeline more about jobs than climate – but recently, they muddied their stand.

Still, both have stressed one simple side of their message – the Tories are for pipelines, and the NDP against. That makes it easier to use it as a wedge issue. And if there’s any two ridings where they should be able to use the issue to trip up Mr. Trudeau, it’s these ones. That’s why these by-elections are a test of Mr. Trudeau’s dance steps.

Results: later this evening.

 

[GAP]

Trudeau......trying to suck and blow at the same time..... :

 

[jollyjacktar]

Trudeau......trying to suck and blow at the same time..... :

Oh, I don't know.  I think he sucks and he blows...

 

[Rifleman62]

He just sucks, just like his father.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Just a friendly reminder folks that we are not some "throw shit" website and lets keep the insults to a reasonable level.

Thanks,
Bruce

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a look at a key wedge issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/from-alberta-to-toronto-oil-is-liberals-litmus-test-in-by-elections/article19388260/#dashboard/follows/

Results: later this evening.

And, the Globe and Mail reports that: "Liberals take two Toronto ridings, Tories hang on to Alberta strongholds."

The report says, "Liberal candidate Adam Vaughan, a former city councillor and broadcaster, nabbed the Toronto riding of Trinity-Spadina from the NDP, while Liberal Arnold Chan boosted the party’s vote in holding the long-time stronghold of Scarborough-Agincourt, another Toronto riding ... [and] ... The Conservatives held both their seats but did so while fending off a Liberal surge in Fort McMurray-Athabasca and seeing their vote share decline in all four races."

Voter turnout was very low.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Voter turnout was very low.

Could they have picked a worse day for an election?  At least it wasn't a complete Federal, otherwise the only good turnouts would be in cottage country.

 

[GAP]

.

 

[ModlrMike]

It's certainly too early to call accurately, but this may point to the next election having the NDP on the ropes as it battles the Bloc in Quebec and the Liberals elsewhere.

The Liberals, Bloc, and NDP all have to fight a multi-front war, the Torries not so much.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Could they have picked a worse day for an election?  At least it wasn't a complete Federal, otherwise the only good turnouts would be in cottage country.

Makes you think whether it was planned like that?? 

Any way, the turnout was abysmal even for byelections.  The largest turnout was in Trinity-Spadina with just 30%. In Ft. McMurry it was even lower, just 15%. And I understand that for the next election, Trinity-Spadina will be split into three separate ridings.

The Pundit Guide to Canadian Federal Elections has a analysis of the byelections. Because it includes graphs and charts I'm only providing the link.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2014/07/june-by-election-turnout-how-low-could-we-go-you-dont-want-to-know/

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Before anyone starts forming conclusions about 35 % of voters voting Liberal in Fort MacMurray, remember that almost everyone in The place comes from outside Alberta and might actually be comfortable with voting Liberal despite  the promise to essentially kill their jobs.  35 % of 15 % turnout means 5% of residents thought the Liberals were important enough to vote for them.  And some media people are painting this as a near Liberal landslide??

 

[The_Falcon]

Adam Vaughn is no longer a Toronto City Councillor.  A liberal win or not, this makes me happy.  It will be interesting to see the two egos (vaughn and trudeau) clash though. 

 

[ModlrMike]

Before anyone starts forming conclusions about 35 % of voters voting Liberal in Fort MacMurray, remember that almost everyone in The place comes from outside Alberta and might actually be comfortable with voting Liberal despite  the promise to essentially kill their jobs.  35 % of 15 % turnout means 5% of residents thought the Liberals were important enough to vote for them.  And some media people are painting this as a near Liberal landslide??

The other difference being in the general election they're probably enumerated in their home ridings which means if they vote in AB, it might change the outcome at home. Lots of single guys in Ft Mac from outside the province.

 

[a_majoor]

Despite the hyperventilation in some quarters, by-elections typically do not represent the wave of the future (and even if they did, the Liberals actually only gained one seat...).

Given the Toronto riding is being split, the "win" really will only give the LPC one year to try capitalize on the name power of a former city councillor, and all parties will need to create two new riding associations, raise money, round up volunteers etc. Whoever is best organized will be the real story in 2015 (and who knows, it could even be the Greens..., although that needs the stars and planets to align pretty tightly).

Ad Edward reminds us, a week is a long time in politics, and there is a lot of "long times" between now and 2015. I suspect the Liberal brand will actually sink even lower in Ontario as the CPC reminds people which party has been in power for the last decade and why Ontario is a "have not" province. Imagine the Young Dauphin trying to explain why his party is not that Liberal Party (he can't even define what is the "middle class"), and I suspect that when questioned he will actually be in favour of most of the job killing initiatives (like "Green" energy) that his provincial counterparts have imposed. 2015 will be so much fun...

 

[Remius]

So the old "Duff" is having a very bad week.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-faces-31-charges-including-bribery-fraud-breach-of-trust-1.2709500

I've posted this here (but could have in the election 2015 thread) and here is why.

This story has not gone away as some may have hoped or predicted.  But...it has shifted in my opinion.

Either through design or through natural progression, this has become a Mike Duffy story and has become less of a CPC/Harper story as it was or attempted to be.

However it should all be taken in with caution because Duffy will appear in court on Sept 19th meaning his trial will likely not start until spring 2015 lasting several months i will assume.  This coincides with the probable election that will be held.  Duffy will undoubtedly mount a vigorous defence and I wouldn't put it past him to at least try and call the PM as a witness.

This could easily revert to becoming a Harper story at a most inopportune time.

 

[Edward Campbell]

No worries.  Some people have a hard time understanding how the tax system works in Canada and might feel that way when confronted with it.  As for me I've nothing more to add to this thread that I already haven't.

Cheers.

This, tax law, may become a political issue. Consider the implications of this issue - "I don’t see why we should give tax breaks to a bunch of left-wing activists. For that matter, I don’t think we should give tax breaks to left-wing think tanks or pro-choice groups. But I don’t see why right-wing activists and think tanks and pro-life groups deserve them either. Perhaps we’ve stretched the definition of “charity” much too far." - which is raised in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/pen-and-the-politics-of-charity/article19736542/#dashboard/follows/

Pen and the politics of charity

MARGARET WENTE
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Jul. 24 2014

Has the Harper government declared jihad against Pen Canada? Margaret Atwood seems to think so. On Monday, Pen’s tiny Toronto office was invaded by Canada Revenue Agency auditors, who are investigating whether Pen has engaged in political activities that might jeopardize its charitable status. “Why does freedom of expression threaten them?” she tweeted.

Pen is an advocate for writers who’ve been targeted by repressive regimes around the world. It isn’t too fond of the Harper government either, and has said so, often.

But the Harper government is only indirectly responsible for siccing the auditors on them. Its real target is unfriendly environmental groups, such as Environmental Defence and the David Suzuki Foundation. In its view, such groups abuse their charitable status to wage war against pipelines and the oil sands, and to spread their “radical ideological agenda.”

Once upon a time, charities simply did good works. They fed the poor or supplied health care and education. But today, the vast charitable sector includes think tanks, right-to-life groups, right-to-choice groups, promoters of social justice, and hordes of environmental activists.

By law, these groups are not allowed to spend more than 10 per cent of their budget on “political activities.” But what, pray tell, are those? Are “partisan activities” okay? To find out, you’ll have to hire a lawyer – preferably before you’re audited by the CRA.

The government and the environmental groups have been at war for years. The government thinks the environmentalists are nakedly partisan and implacably hostile. “Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth,” wrote Joe Oliver, then Natural Resources minister, in an open letter in 2012. “No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.” Many of these groups, he charged, are funded by foreign foundations run by “billionaire socialists.”

Environmental groups don’t see it that way, of course. In their view, they are a vital part of civil society, and the government is on a witch hunt. (They also blame Ezra Levant, the Sun News Network, and the cabal that runs Ethical Oil.) “The Harper government attack on non-profits is unprecedented,” one fundraiser told The Canadian Press. “I essentially see it as a bullying tactic.”

The Canada Revenue Agency insists that it is acting at arm’s-length and that it’s impartial. Only it can decide whom to audit. This is true. But the government put its thumb on the scales by giving the CRA an extra $8-million in 2012, along with an explicit policy directive to audit groups that might be engaging in excessive “political activities.” The CRA has so far identified 52 such groups. It says 32 of these audits are “ongoing or already closed.”

It won’t name names, but they include seven major environmental organizations, as well as Amnesty International, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the United Church of Canada’s Kairos charity, all of which have poked their thumbs in the government’s eye at some time or other. Some of the audits have stretched out for two years, and have been costly for the subjects.

The fear of audits has already led countless charities to tone down their messages and scrutinize their practices. The CRA rarely delists a charity for political activities, but the very possibility is chilling.

Charities don’t pay income tax. They can write tax-deductible receipts, and they get foundation grants. Without charitable status, many of them wouldn’t survive.

Personally, I think the government has a point. I don’t see why we should give tax breaks to a bunch of left-wing activists. For that matter, I don’t think we should give tax breaks to left-wing think tanks or pro-choice groups. But I don’t see why right-wing activists and think tanks and pro-life groups deserve them either. Perhaps we’ve stretched the definition of “charity” much too far. Canada’s charitable sector now amounts to an enormous $223-billion, and I think that plenty of Canadians might be surprised at where their subsidies go.

I am also not convinced that monitoring the “political activity” of charities is the most urgent task in the philanthropic world. Charitable expert Mark Blumberg says the real problem is the abuse of receipting privileges, which costs the government billions.

So Pen is right. It is on the pointy end of a political attack that is essentially a waste of time. There is an upside, though. The donations and memberships are pouring in.

Personally, I think Peggy Wente has a point. I agree with her that we've overstretched the definition of "charity." I'm not sure how to reign things back in ... but I suspect a substantial majority of Canadians would support not object to tightening the rules.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Really?

Answering a single written question from a Liberal MP cost the federal government $117,188 in staff time, according to information tabled this week in the House of Commons.

The right to ask departments for written answers is a key tool for MPs – primarily on the opposition benches – to dig up information that can later be used against their political rivals.

(....)

Over less than a four-month span up to Jan. 29, 2014, the total was more than $1.2-million.

The answer to Mr. Wallace’s question was provided by individual departments and compiled by the Government House Leader. The estimate is based on how much it would cost for a public servant with a salary and benefits of $116,160 – equivalent to $60 an hour – to produce the answer.

1)  I suppose the Conservatives kept this in mind when THEY sought written answers to questions pre-2006?
2)  Is my math screwed up, or do these figures, as reported, mean it takes an average of more than one staff-year to answer one question submitted by an MP?

 

[Rifleman62]

http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

National Post - 19 Sep 14

MPs prohibited from visiting bases

Members of Parliament are barred from visiting Canadian military bases except under restricted circumstances. Defence Minister Rob Nicholson’s office says the policy was created by the military, applies to MPs from all parties and is designed to “ensure the resources of the Canadian Armed Forces are used effectively.” Two weeks ago, MP Yvonne Jones, the Liberals’ search and rescue critic, was denied permission from the minister to tour Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt and CFB Comox, both major hubs for the military’s search-and-rescue operations in B.C.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Members of Parliament are barred from visiting Canadian military bases except under restricted circumstances. Defence Minister Rob Nicholson’s office says the policy was created by the military, applies to MPs from all parties and is designed to “ensure the resources of the Canadian Armed Forces are used effectively.” Two weeks ago, MP Yvonne Jones, the Liberals’ search and rescue critic, was denied permission from the minister to tour Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt and CFB Comox, both major hubs for the military’s search-and-rescue operations in B.C.

Exactly how much resources are involved in VIP tours?  It's not like they are dragging someone off the front lines in a thermonuclear war.  In business, it's called PR and everyone loves it.  Getting the ear of a politician isn't normally considered a bad thing.